北京继发性痛风治疗山东痛风石治疗的医院地址,北京痛风脚后跟疼怎么治疗,山东脚痛风症状有哪些,山东车前草治疗痛风吗,山东怎样治痛风症状,山东怎么样消除痛风石,济南痛风发作前期

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney announced Tuesday morning that he supports a vote on President Donald Trump’s impending Supreme Court nominee.Romney was one of only a few senators who were thought to be on the fence about considering Trump’s pick and this announcement all but ensures the Senate will proceed with a vote and the nominee will likely be appointed to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's vacant seat.“The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees,” said Romney in a statement. “Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”My statement regarding the current Supreme Court vacancy: pic.twitter.com/6YO0dPWWXc— Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) September 22, 2020 The president said Tuesday that he plans on naming his nominee on Saturday after the memorial services for Ginsburg have concluded this week. The justice and gender equality icon died Friday at the age of 87 after a battle with pancreatic cancer.On Monday, Trump met with conservative appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is considered a favorite for the nomination.Senate Judiciary chairman Lindsey Graham has said Republicans have the votes to confirm Trump’s pick before the Nov. 3 presidential election, which is just 42 days from Tuesday.That’s despite GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins saying they oppose voting on a Supreme Court pick until after Nov. 3, when Americans will make their voice heard at the ballot box.Many Democratic leaders have called the Republican leadership hypocritical for pushing a Supreme Court pick through so close to the general election. In 2016, the GOP-controlled Senate refused to vote on then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nine months before that year’s general election.The Republicans argue that it’s different situation in 2020, because they have control of the Senate and the White House. 2141

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is threatening to veto a defense policy bill unless it ends protections for internet companies that shield them from being held liable for material posted by their users.Trump tweeted Tuesday that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is “a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity.”He adds that if it “is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill.”.....Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2020 Trump has been waging war against social media companies for months, claiming they are biased against conservative voices.Since his reelection bid failed, Trump has continued to flood his social media channels with unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. On Twitter, many of his tweets have been tagged with the advisory, “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”Tuesday’s veto threat isn’t the only thing standing in the way of the defense bill being signed into law. The Associated Press found the legislation is being held up in Congress due to an argument over military bases that are named for Confederate officers. The topic gained national attention during the summer as people across the country advocated for racial equality and justice. 1607

WASHINGTON (AP) — Using thousands of military troops to help secure the Southwest border will cost an estimated 0 million under current plans, the Pentagon told Congress on Tuesday, even as questions arose about the scope and duration of the controversial mission.The total includes million for approximately 5,900 active-duty troops providing support to Customs and Border Protection, plus 8 million so far for 2,100 National Guard troops who have been performing a separate border mission since April, according to a report sent to Congress on Tuesday but not released by the Pentagon.A copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press. After the AP published its story the Pentagon released a statement confirming the active-duty portion of the deployments is estimated at million. It did not mention the 8 million in National Guard costs.The total would grow beyond the current combined estimate of 0 million if the active-duty mission is extended beyond the current completion date of Dec. 15. Officials said an extension appeared likely but had not yet been agreed upon.The Pentagon also was working on a potential adjustment to the mission that would give the active-duty troops who are operating in Texas, Arizona and California the authority to defend Customs and Border Protection personnel if necessary. The troops, who include military police, are currently authorized to defend themselves.About 2,800 of the active-duty troops are in South Texas, far from the main migrant caravan in Tijuana, Mexico, south of California. The movement of the Central American migrants into Mexico in October was the stated reason that President Donald Trump ordered the military to provide support for Customs and Border Protection.Trump, who called the migrant caravan an "invasion," has been accused by critics, including some retired military officers, of using the military deployment as a political tool in the run-up to the Nov. 6 midterm elections.Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said Tuesday the Pentagon's cost report shows the mission was a "charade.""These soldiers spent weeks away from home and the Pentagon wasted millions of taxpayer dollars so President Trump could stoke fears of asylum seekers and try to influence election results," she said. "Using our military men and women as political pawns to support an anti-immigrant agenda is a low point, even for this president."On Tuesday, Trump said he was sure the troops are happy to be on the border mission, even though it means being away from home over Thanksgiving."Don't worry about the Thanksgiving. These are tough people," Trump told reporters before flying to Florida for the holiday. "They know what they're doing and they're great and they've done a great job. You're so worried about the Thanksgiving holiday for them. They are so proud to be representing our country on the border where if you look at what's happening, Mexico, the people from Tijuana are saying, wow these are tough people. They're fighting us."If, as expected, the mission is extended beyond Dec. 14, at least some of the troops are likely also to be away for Christmas.Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has declined to publicly discuss cost estimates for the border mission, saying as recently as last week that he had little confidence in the accuracy of figures he had seen thus far."We can estimate costs all we want, I'd prefer to give you real costs. Right now, I can't give that to you," Mattis told reporters last Wednesday when he flew to Texas to see the military's work. "It's the cost of deploying them, it's the cost of transferring their equipment to the border, it's fuel costs, it's all those kinds of costs. So, I just don't want to get into something I can't give you what I believe confidently is accurate."In its report to Congress on Tuesday, the Pentagon said it expects the deployment of 5,900 active-duty troops through Dec. 15 to cost million, while adding that the mission, which is now three weeks old, is still being refined. The cost includes million for personnel, million for transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies, in operating expenses and million for concertina wire and other border barrier materials."The total cost of the operation has yet to be determined and will depend on the total size, duration and scope," the report said.It said that as of Nov. 14, about million in actual payments for expenses such as travel, supplies and transportation had been reported by the units involved.The National Guard's border mission, which is being conducted by troops for numerous states, has cost an estimated 8 million as of Tuesday, the Pentagon report said. That mission, involving about 2,100 troops, began in April. 4778

WASHINGTON D.C. (KGTV) - White House Communications Director Hope Hicks resigned Wednesday, leading to one more change to President Trump’s key staff members.Here’s a look at which insiders have left since Trump took office in January 2017.Former chief of staff Reince Priebus resigned from his position after spending six months in the White House.RELATED: Trump's communications director Hope Hicks resignsSteve Bannon, who joined the White House as Chief Strategist during the inauguration, left in August 2017.He rejoined Breitbart News. Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh left in March of last year. She became an adviser to the pro-Trump America First Policies, and the Republican National Committee.President Trump also lost Sean Spicer, who served as Press Secretary and later, Communications Director.RELATED: Second White House official resigns amid domestic abuse allegationsHicks is the fourth Communications Director to resign, following Spicer, Michael Dubke, and Anthony Scaramucci. Scaramucci’s tenure lasted just ten days. 1066

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642